The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) is a national committee representing 11 organizations concerned about individuals with learning disabilities. The NJCLD considers and discusses contemporary issues in learning disabilities and develops and disseminates reports and statements related to these issues to influence policy and practice. Debi Gartland, Ph.D., Professor of Special Education at Towson University, Maryland, and Roberta Strosnider, Ed.D., Professor of Special Education at Towson Univeristy, represent the Council for Learning Disabilities on the NJCLD. They co-authored this paper with other NJCLD members. For more information about the paper or the NJCLD, contact Debi Gartland at gartland@towson.edu.
The purpose of this NJCLD report is to examine the concepts, potential benefits, practical issues, and unanswered questions associated with responsiveness to intervention (RTI) and learning disabilities (LD). After brief overview of the approach, issues related to RTI implementation, including use as an eligibility mechanism, parent participation, structure and components, professional roles and competencies, and needed research, are addressed. The report is neither a position paper nor a “how-to guide” for implementing an RTI approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ConwayS.J.KovaleskiJ.F. (1998). A model for statewide special education reform: Pennsylvania's Instructional Support Teams. International Journal of Educational Reform, 7, 345–351
2.
DenoS.GrimesJ.ReschlyD.SchragJ. (2001). PSM review team report. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools.
3.
FoormanB.R.TorgesenJ. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning disabilities: Research and Practice, 16 (4), 203–212.
4.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP.YoungC. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18 (3), 157–171.
5.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.SpeeceD.L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
6.
GreshamF.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)
7.
IkedaM.J.GustafsonJ.K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11's problem-solving process: Impact on issues related to special education (Research Rep. No. 2002–01). Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency.
8.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, PL 108–446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.
9.
Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2002, July). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/advocacy/CommonGround.doc
10.
Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2005, February). Comments and recommendations on regulatory issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108–446. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/2004LDRoundtableRecsTransmittal.pdf
11.
LyonG.R.FletcherJ.M.ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A.TorgesenJ.K.WoodF.. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC.E.Jr.RotherhamA.J.HokansonC.R.Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.excellence.net/library/specialed/index.html)
12.
MarstonD. (2001, August). A functional and intervention- based assessment approach to establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the LD Summit, Washington, DC.
13.
MarstonD.MuyskensP.LauM.CanterA. (2003). Problemsolving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18 (3), 187–200.
14.
McMasterK.I.FuchsD.FuchsL.S.ComptonD.I. (2003, December). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Paper presented at the NRCLD symposium, Responsiveness to Intervention, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved from www.nrcld.org
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1997). Learning disabilities: Preservice preparation of general and special education teachers. In Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 99–107). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
17.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1998). Learning disabilities: Use of paraprofessionals. In Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp.79–98). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
18.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1999). Professional development for teachers. In Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 69–78). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
19.
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2003, June). Information sheet for Regional Resource Centers. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org
20.
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2004). Understanding responsiveness to intervention in learning disabilities determination. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org
21.
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2005). National Research Center on Learning Disabilities mission. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org/mission.shtml.
22.
National Research Council. (2002). Executive summary: Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
24.
TillyW. D.IIIGrimesJ.ReschlyD. (1993, September-December). Special education system reform: The Iowa story. Communiqué, 22, 1–4.
25.
TorgesenJ.K.AlexanderA.W.WagnerR.K.RashotteC.A.VoellerK.S.ConroyT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with reading disabilities: Immediate and longterm outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58, 78.
26.
VaughnS.FuchsL. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to intervention: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18 (3), 137–146.
27.
VaughnS.GerstenR.ChardJ.E. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99–114.
28.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
DonovanM. S.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special education and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30.
FletcherJ. M.ReschlyD. J. (2005, Winter). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of perpetuating old ideas. The School Psychologist, 10–15.
31.
GerberM. M. (2003, December). Teachers are still the test. Paper presented at the NRCLD symposium, Responsiveness to Intervention, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org
32.
HaleJ. B.NaglieriJ. A.KaufmanA. S.KavaleK. A. (2004, Winter). Specific learning disability classification in the new Individuals with Disabilities Act: The danger of good ideas. The School Psychologist, 6–13, 29–30.
33.
KavaleK. A.KaufmanA. S.NaglieriJ. A.HaleJ. B. (2005, Winter). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 16–25.
34.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly2, 5, 155–168.
35.
VaughnS. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed for response to intervention achieve acceptable prevention outcomes?Paper presented at the NRCLD symposium, Responsiveness to Intervention, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org
36.
VellutinoF.ScanlonD.LyonG. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
